How can you say Israel bombing civilians bad but Russia is ok..?

[Nivsch]

53 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Bro all this is is a way to hate on Israel. Stop saying how wrong your country is is and believe in them.  

The liberal Israel that I know for 37 years is being treatened by Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich and their far right sectors more than any external enemy.

I wish my country to be splitted to two constitutional countries, because I think the value systems gaps are too wide to be bridged at this point.

Edited August 26 by Nivsch

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

The liberal Israel that I know for 37 years is being treatened by Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich and their far right sectors more than any external enemy.

I wish my country to be splitted to two constitutional countries, because I think the values systems gaps are too wide to be bridged at this point.

Alright well maybe if it weren't for him there wouldn't be a country anymore.  He's got survival on his mind.

[Nivsch]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Alright well maybe if it weren't for him there wouldn't be a country anymore.  He's got survival on his mind.

He weakens the country long-term.

Israel did better before him.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

He weakens the country long-term.

Israel did better before him.

Was it any better before him? 

[zazen]

22 hours ago, zazen said:

@Basman Agree with Karmadhi here. No one’s said it’s a good thing - you guys conflate understanding with justification. It’s similar to understanding the context behind October 7th and the same way Zionists would conflate that with condoning the brutal act. The point is to understand the conditions that eventually lead to such blatant acts of aggression or violence / terrorism - in order to prevent them. I’ve literally said there are legitimate causes (security concerns) gone about in illegitimate ways (invasion, October 7th).

About the cause - you’re saying it’s regime security and ideology, rather than security logic. Putin can definitely benefit domestically by framing NATO expansion as a threat, but that’s not a primary cause - perhaps not even secondary, but can be opportunistically used sure. What you name as ideology is really identity - which acts as a really powerful accelerant to the core cause I agree.

All Russia leaders have said NATO in Ukraine would be a red line. It’s not unique to Putin. Putins approval tanked after Crimea in fact - so why would he do another invasion knowing it put his popularity at risk before, thus the regimes security at risk.

Former Director of the CIA Bill Burns in his 2008 memos (Nyet means nyet) said:

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Ideology doesn’t erase geography and security concerns. US didn’t blockade Cuba primarily because of ideology or to secure its Democracy from a commie utopian island next door that may have been. It was primarily a security concern of having missiles from a rival power stationed that close to you.

If all parties involved (Russia-Ukraine-US) shared the same ideology (liberalism) and political system (democracy) - would Russia still react to security concerns on its periphery in a historical invasion corridor? Or would Russia say no it’s cool they’re a liberal Democracy just like us? Security concerns exist regardless of ideology or political systems - and are acted upon.

On the identity point: you bring up the cultural similarity between Ukraine and Russia which is where I think theres an added element of bitterness and betrayal. But it isn’t ideology like of the Soviet times being pushed out. Ukraine/Kiev is the cultural/civilisational heart of Russia - that being turned against you is literally vodka on the wound.

What would just ordinarily be a cold (logical) security concern becomes a hot (emotional) burning concern.  It’s like if a hostile rival to Saudi Arabia - such as Iran - were to turn Mecca against Saudi Arabia. The entire Sunni Muslim world would be fuming because it’s a civilization spit in the face - beside also being an existential threat to Saudi.

The root cause that is structurally driving a response is security, with the cultural/civilizational aspect being a powerful accelerant. That intensifies the security concern and makes it a easy sell to domestic Russians to rally around. It’s not only that the West is parking missiles on their doorstep, but that it’s in their childhood home - the cradle of their civilisation.  

The core logic of security would exist even if Ukraine were as foreign as Mexico. Power plus proximity equals panic for any power - and is responded to every time.

I recommend the latest Lex Fridman and Scott Horton podcast - the last segment on Ukraine. That covers the core cause very well in a way that doesn’t glaze authoritarianism or Putin.

Here ya go: 

 

[Basman]

On 26/08/2025 at 2:06 AM, zazen said:

The root cause that is structurally driving a response is security, with the cultural/civilizational aspect being a powerful accelerant. That intensifies the security concern and makes it a easy sell to domestic Russians to rally around. It’s not only that the West is parking missiles on their doorstep, but that it’s in their childhood home - the cradle of their civilisation.  

It is not true to that the primary motivator for the invasion is national security. The invasion is a net negative for Russia. None of Russia's security council would ever launch an invasion. It is wholly Putin's idea, who is motivated by a notion of Russian supremacy and the need to maintain regime. Keep in mind, they thought that the invasion would be quick, like Crimea. Putin is stuck in Ukraine because he can't withdraw without undermining his regime. He probably wouldn't have invaded if he knew that it would be a war of attrition lasting several years. 

You also don't acknowledge how depoliticized Russians are. When Ukraine occupies Kursk, Russians externalize the whole event. They don't see a foreign army occupying their town as something they are politically responsible for. It just happens. "politics are for politicians (IE. Putin)". How does the state of Ukraine matter to people who don't even care what their own government is doing?

This is Putins war. Not Russias. If you can't acknowledge that simple truth you can't say anything about the war that is truthful. disingenuous at best. Misleading at worst.

Edited August 27 by Basman

[zazen]

15 hours ago, Basman said:

It is not true to that the primary motivator for the invasion is national security. The invasion is a net negative for Russia. None of Russia's security council would ever launch an invasion. It is wholly Putin's idea, who is motivated by a notion of Russian supremacy and the need to maintain regime. Keep in mind, they thought that the invasion would be quick, like Crimea. Putin is stuck in Ukraine because he can't withdraw without undermining his regime. He probably wouldn't have invaded if he knew that it would be a war of attrition lasting several years. 

 

At least you didn’t ad hominem and call me phony like your first comment.

The security council don’t have the power to initiate wars in the first place - in that sense it’s true when you say it’s Putins war, as the president is the final decision maker. But that doesn’t mean theirs no institutional buy in or elite consensus. That’s still required to execute big moves - it’s not a one man show that can simply execute a war that requires intelligence, military, media and economic advisory. The whole state machinery has to move to execute such a decision.

The security councils also dominated by siloviki (security service and military veterans) - their worldview is built around buffer zones and strategic depth - including NATO being no bueno. Them differing on the approach (invasion) and timing on acting upon red lines doesn’t erase the fact they have consensus on what that red line is. Also, Medvedev invaded Georgia in 2008 (with security council support).

Russian elites consistently back the president when they think their core interests are threatened. Disagreement on tactics doesn’t mean disagreement on objectives - national security and no NATO especially in Ukraine (historic invasion corridor and a civilizational insult).

They were definitely hoping on a quick “operation” as they call it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a Plan B,C or even D to fall back on. Putin wouldn’t just bet everything on one move without any contingency - he’s not that stupid or impulsive.

We are yet to see if it’s a net negative, Russia plays on a longer timeline than you think. Western democracies have a shorter politic time horizon because of  election cycles - which is why they have a deep state that tries to maintain continuity of agenda through. Russia and China just have a state - thats continuous and stable (even if aggressively stabilised).

The West has a deep state precisely because its surface state is exposed to constant changes via the ballot box. The surface state (democracy) can disrupt or slow down the deep states long terms plans and be in friction with it VS a centralized continuous state that can have a cleaner longer time horizon.

15 hours ago, Basman said:

You also don't acknowledge how depoliticized Russians are. When Ukraine occupies Kursk, Russians externalize the whole event. They don't see a foreign army occupying their town as something they are politically responsible for. It just happens. "politics are for politicians (IE. Putin)". How does the state of Ukraine matter to people who don't even care what their own government is doing?

This is Putins war. Not Russias. If you can't acknowledge that simple truth you can't say anything about the war that is truthful. disingenuous at best. Misleading at worst.

Security dilemmas aren’t for the masses to solve. Most people don’t spend their lives studying military doctrine, geography, or strategic depth. Those calculations are made by generals and strategists who’ve been saying for decades that NATO in Ukraine is a red line - including Western strategists.

Which is why the emotional layer is sold to the Russian public rather than cold boring PowerPoints on security. As I said above in the previous comment - theirs a security logic to all this at the highest level - then the identity / civilisational logic of humiliation at the mass level also at play that only amplifies the security logic and justifies the states actions easily to a mass public, who don’t always have the time or intelligence to understand such things.

If Russians are so depoliticised as you say and don’t care for what Putin or the state does - then what exactly does Putin need to secure himself against? In your own words, he seems to have regime security already.

Edited August 28 by zazen

[zazen]

@Basman